undefined

points

[-]

I do not care to try to make things ethically fair for oil refineries. Call me a hypocrite, I do not care, as these companies similarly do not care. "Ya got me!", yup, moving on, I am still glad oil refineries are effectively banned.

by akoboldfrying1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

My point wasn't about fairness towards oil refinery companies, it was that supporting a ban on refineries in your local area while still benefiting from the downstream outputs of oil refineries is hypocritical nimbyism.

If oil refineries are bad in California, they're bad everywhere, and if they're bad everywhere, we ought to stop using them altogether, which will make for some unwelcome lifestyle changes.

by inigyou16 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Would it be hypocritical nimbyism if I wanted to use semiconductors containing arsenic, but didn't want my living room to be an arsenic warehouse? Or how far away does the arsenic warehouse have to be before it starts being hypocritical nimbyism for me to not like it there?

by akoboldfrying5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

IMO it would be hypocritical nimbyism if the arsenic warehouse would need to be in someone's living room for those semiconductors to get manufactured.

by tzs12 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> If oil refineries are bad in California, they're bad everywhere

That doesn't follow. It only follows that they are bad everywhere with circumstances similar to California. A place differing in distribution of population, distribution of agricultural land, weather patterns, and/or water flows might be able to have refineries without causing the harms that makes them difficult to place in California.

by akoboldfrying5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I agree with your reasoning in principle, but I think it doesn't hold up for California specifically. According to Gemini, 90% of California's population lives in 5% of its land area, and 45-50% of the land is government-owned, much of it being unpopulated wild areas including large parts of the Mojave and Colorado deserts.

The state is large, diverse and already contains vast chunks of unpopulated land. Almost everywhere that isn't near the poles is similar to some part of California.

by wewtyflakes23 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I'm fine if other states want to ban them too. I'm also fine if ultimately running oil refineries is uneconomical. I do not care if this is nimbyism; other communities are free to set their own rules.

by anankaie12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Much of the pharmaceutical industry depends on petroleum byproducts.

by akoboldfrying19 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

So you're okay with no refineries after all.

So, no combustion-based private or public transportation, no detergents, no aspirin, paracetamol or ibuprofen.

It would still be possible to drive an EV, though. You could keep it lubricated with whale oil.

by wewtyflakes10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think the things you are describing would make running a refinery economical, and I am sure at some price some community would be thrilled to have a refinery. Good for them, still glad its not here.

by testbjjl1 days ago|

prev|

[-]

I think if we consolidate those operations the better, and then we can improve an regulate legislative or as a market more easily than if everyone is spread all over.

by cucumber37328421 days ago|

parent|

[-]

If we consolidate them you wind up with the same situation we have for everything already. The big megacorps who's paid for experts and lawyers (and ability to donate to politics) to tell you why the river glowing is safe get to do what they want and the upstart who may challenge that bigCo to do better never gets off the ground. But I guess if the goal is simply to declare everything "fixed" because the government has agreed it's compliant then consolidation is fine.

by trklausss1 days ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Yeah I agree. Since Russia is mostly empty and they have a lot of oil, let's put all refineries there! (/s)

This is to show that there is more geopolitically than meets the eye.